THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT"

Transcription

1 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 286/15 In the matter between: DIESEL SUPPLY AND LOGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant and R SKHOSANA COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION First Respondent Second Respondent MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ALFRED LESIBA MOLOMO Third Respondent Heard: 13 October 2016 Delivered: 14 October 2016 JUDGMENT

2 2 VAN NIEKERK J [1] This is an application to review and set aside an arbitration award issued by the first respondent (the arbitrator). In his award, the arbitrator found that the third respondent (the employee) had been unfairly dismissed and ordered the applicant to pay him compensation in the amount of R58 000, the equivalent of nine months remuneration. [2] The employee was employed in August 2013, as a tanker driver responsible for the collection and transportation of fuel. The employee was dismissed on 2 May 2014, after he had tested positive for using marijuana. [3] The arbitrator commenced the proceedings by (commendably) attempting to identify the issues in dispute. The exchange between the parties revealed that the applicant asserted that the employee was guilty of using an illegal substance in the form of marijuana; the employee denied that assertion. The central issue that the arbitrator was required to determine was a factual one- whether the employee had used marijuana. [4] The first witness to testify for the applicant was a Ms Corné Muller, the applicant s operations manager. She testified that the applicant is in the business of the transportation of fuel products. Muller testified that some of the drivers had reported to her that the employee was smoking illegal substances before and while he operated the applicant s trucks. The applicant then conducted an unscheduled drug test on all of the drivers. They were each given a clean glass and asked to provide a urine sample. The sample was sealed. Each driver was asked to open the seal in Muller s presence and to write their names on the test. A testing strip was inserted into the sample and in the employee s case, he tested positive for marijuana. Muller further explained that given the nature of the applicant s business, if any driver tested positive for the use of any illegal substance the applicant stood to lose a licence issued by Sasol, in which event the applicant to lose income or even close down. Muller further testified that after she had received the information from other drivers regarding the employee s

3 3 use of marijuana, she noticed that he is mouth was dry, he was constantly licking his lips, spitting, that he had red eyes and was tired. [5] After the test, the employee was notified to attend a disciplinary hearing, which resulted in his dismissal. [6] In cross-examination, Muller was asked whether the applicant s employees knew that they could be tested at any time. She replied in the affirmative. When asked if she had observed the employee using marijuana, she replied in the affirmative after a tipoff that the employee was smoking marijuana at that very moment, she went outside and observed the employee sitting under a tree with a cigarette in his hand. The whole area was filled with smoke and the smell of marijuana. When questioned about the authenticity of the testing mechanism, Muller replied that it had been tested by the drug board and was an extremely reliable test. She denied that it was necessary to employ someone who is a professional to administer any test or additional test and maintained that the drug test used was both reliable and used across the industry in which the applicant was engaged. When questioned about the sanction of dismissal, Muller testified that driving a fuel truck under the influence of an illegal substance with 40,000 l of explosive fuel in a truck necessarily had the consequence of dismissal. [7] The arbitrator then intervened by enquiring as to the authenticity and reliability of the drug test. Muller replied that the test was supplied by a pharmaceutical company. Muller was then asked by the arbitrator why the employee had not been sent to a medical facility so that medical experts could test him because they can see that the whole range of drugs like take like heroin and the like, negative, negative marijuana positive why did the company take that decision? (sic). Muller replied that the applicant relied on the drug test that was administered. In re-examination, Muller testified that the test that was administered tested not only for marijuana, but for heroin, codeine, tik and other drugs. The test administered on the employee did not show a positive result for any drug other than marijuana.

4 4 [8] The employee testified that on 3 March he went to visit the management office to see a Mr Schoeman. He was there to request an increment so that he could purchase retirement funding. He stated that Schoeman told him to return on 7 April. On that date (the day on which the drug test was administered) he went to the boardroom. On entering the boardroom he and the other drivers were informed by Schoeman that he had bought a drug test from Clicks and that they were to urinate into a glass to provide a urine specimen. He took the glass to Muller s office. Muller wrote his name on the test. After a few minutes, the test registered positive. The test had not been sealed. Schoeman phoned the applicant the next day to tell him that the test was positive. He advised Schoeman that he did not smoke marijuana and never had. At other companies in which the employee had worked, drivers would be taken to a medical doctor for testing. Under cross-examination, the employee did not dispute that he had been tested on 7 April. He added further that on that date, he was not on duty, he was there to hand over work done the previous week and to discuss his request in relation to retirement funding. In relation to the employee s evidence that Muller herself wrote the applicant s name on the test, it was put to him by reference to an employee information form completed by the employee at the commencement of his employment, that the handwriting on the form that he had completed was exactly the same handwriting that appeared on the drug test. The employee could not provide an explanation, he simply denied the assertion that he was lying under oath. The employee did not dispute that he was aware that the use of marijuana was unlawful. Under re-examination, the employee testified that Schoeman had asked him whether he could take him to his doctor, to which he replied in the affirmative. However, he (the employee) was not taken to any doctor. [9] What emerges from the evidence that served before the arbitrator is that Muller s evidence was essentially unchallenged. Specifically, no alternative version was ever put to her for her comment. Further, the employee s representative did not dispute that the employee had been seen smoking marijuana by other persons, including other drivers and by Muller. It was never put to Muller that this would be

5 5 denied by the employee all she was asked is whether other drivers would be called to testify. It was also not disputed that Muller had witnessed other symptomatic indicators of substance abuse; all that was put to her was that these may have been the employee s reaction to the fear of being subjected to the drug test. It was never specifically put to Muller that the test had been unlawfully or unfairly conducted, nor was her evidence that the test was one generally used in the industry placed in dispute. Also not disputed during her cross examination was Muller s evidence that the employee had written his own name on the test, which was sealed. It was never put to her that the employee would claim that she had written his name on the test, nor was it ever put to her that Schoeman had offered to take the employee to a doctor for a further test. [10] In contrast, the nature of the employee s evidence is a bare denial. [11] The arbitrator s reasoning is best discerned from the following paragraphs in his award: 34. The respondent in this matter did not submit documentary information relating to the charges. The respondent did not supply me with a record of the disciplinary hearing. 35. The respondent could not supply the hearing with the disciplinary code of conduct. Mrs Corne Mulder wanted me to just accept his oral submissions that a fair procedure was followed. 36. Where I stand is that, should a recognised disciplinary offence be reflected, the employee should be able to comprehend these charges. I do, however, agree that any incorrect characterisation of an offence does not render the employer s case fatal. An arbitrator should be able to establish the true nature of the dispute. 37. No medical expert was called to come and interpret the device. 38. In analysing the evidence tendered, my view is that the major weakness of the applicant s case in these proceedings was the failure of the representative to tender any documentary evidence that proves that they were to present expert evidence that would have elicited the use of marijuana on the part of the applicant.

6 6 39. The respondent did not call Mr Schoeman as a witness. 40. Respondent did not call the employees who are said to have reported to Mrs Mulders that the applicant smoked marijuana. 41. In the premises I consider a financial compensation of 9 (nine) months salary to be just and equitable under the circumstances. In awarding financial compensation, I shall be guided by consideration of the extent of the unfairness of the dismissal. In arriving at this decision, I have considered future prospects of employment for the applicant. The time that has elapsed since the dismissal of the applicant is not considerable; the employment duration was more than three years. There are prospects that he will find alternative employment, though he is in his late 50s 45. I have come to the conclusion that the respondent contravened the provisions of section 188 (1) of the LRA. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. 49. The employer was vindictive and malicious in its actions 51. I am not unmindful to the fact that this is a business concern; however the message of justice and equity as part of a normative value system in our constitutional democracy must be instilled and inculcated amongst all in this country. Respondent has acted in flagrant disregard and contempt to the laws of this country. (Sic) [12] This court is entitled to interfere with an award made by a commissioner if and only if the commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry (and thus denied the parties a fair hearing) or committed a reviewable irregularity which had the consequence of an unreasonable result. The applicant contends for the latter, on the basis reflected above. However, the failure by an arbitrator to attach particular weight to evidence or attachment of weight to the relevant evidence and the like is not in itself a basis for review; the resultant decision must fall outside of a band of decisions to which reasonable decision-makers could come on the same material (see Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd [2013] 11 BLLR 1074 (SCA)).

7 7 [13] The Labour Appeal Court recently affirmed that while the failure of an arbitrator to apply his or her mind to issues which are material to the determination of a case will usually be held to be an irregularity, before the irregularity will result in the setting aside of the award, it must in addition reveal a misconception of the true enquiry or result in an unreasonable outcome (see Head of Dept. of Education v Mofokeng [2015] 1 BLLR 50 (LAC), at paragraph 30). In other words, whether a decision is unreasonable in its result ultimately requires this court to consider whether apart from the flawed reasons of or any irregularity by the arbitrator, the result could still be reasonably reached in the light of the issues and the evidence. [14] In Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (2016) 37 OLJ 923 (LC), Myburgh AJ undertook a comprehensive review of the application of these principles. He noted that where an arbitrator is required to resolve a factual dispute, the arbitrator is required to undertake a balanced assessment of the credibility, reliability and probabilities associated with the evidence (see Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd v Ngqeleni NO & others (2011) 32 ILJ 723 (LC)). Arbitrators are obliged to weigh all of the relevant evidence and probabilities before drawing inferences and making findings (see paragraph [65] of the judgment, and the reference to Minister of Safety and Security & another v Madikane & others (2015) 36 ILJ 1224 (LAC)). As Myburgh AJ notes, a failure properly to determine a factual dispute, or draw inferences or make factual findings, a failure to do so does not in itself constitute a basis for review the decision to which the arbitrator comes must be substantively unreasonable. The court summarised the position (particularly following the Mofokeng judgement as follows: [69] The shorthand for all of this is the following: where a commissioner misdirects him or herself by ignoring material facts or considerations (brought about by, for example, not engaging in proper analysis of the evidence, as per Sasol Mining and Madikane), the award will be reviewable if the distorting effect of this misdirection was to render the award unreasonable.

8 8 [15] If the arbitrator s deviation from the norm represented by the right to a fair hearing is egregious, it is not likely that the outcome of the proceedings would be reasonable. [16] The Labour Appeal Court has previously held that for an arbitrator to rely on evidence in the absence of that evidence having been put to the opposing party s witnesses under cross-examination, is in itself a reviewable defect (see SA Nylon Spinners (Pty) Ltd v Davids [1998] 2 BLLR 135 (LAC) and ABSA Brokers (Pty) Ltd v Moshoana NO & others (2005) 26 ILJ 1652 (LAC). In the ABSA Brokers judgment, Nkabinde AJA emphasised that it is an essential part of the administration of justice that a cross-examiner must put as much of his or her case to witness as concerns that witness. Specifically, the court held that the witness s attention must first be drawn to a particular point on the basis of which it is intended to suggest that he was she is not speaking the truth and thereafter be afforded with an opportunity of providing an explanation. A failure to crossexamine may, in general, imply acceptance of the witness s testimony. The court went on to refer to an extract from a judgment of the Constitutional Court: It is apposite to refer to what the Constitutional Court had to say in this regard in President of the Republic of South Africa v SA Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) at para There the court said: [61] The institution of cross-examination not only constitutes a right, it also imposes certain obligations. As a general rule, it is essential, when it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct the witness s attention to the fact by questions put in cross-examination showing that the imputation is intended to be made and to afford the witness an opportunity, while still in the witness box, of giving any explanation open to the witness and of defending his or her character [63] The precise nature of the imputation should be made to the witness so that it can be met and destroyed, particularly where the imputation relies upon inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the

9 9 proceedings. It should be made clear not only that the evidence is to be challenged, but also how it is to be challenged. This is so because the witness must be given an opportunity to deny the challenge, to call corroborative evidence, to qualify the evidence given by the witness or others and to explain contradictions on which reliance is to be placed. [17] In the present instance, the arbitrator was confronted with two mutually destructive versions. That being so, he was obliged to consider the conflicting versions and to make findings based on the probabilities. The arbitrator did not engage in a proper enquiry to determine which version was the more probable. He simply accepted the employee s version as being more probable, without any consideration whatsoever of the probabilities inherent in either version. Further, the arbitrator clearly failed to apply his mind to the evidence before him and to consider the evidence holistically. While he referred to the probative value of the two versions before him, he failed to consider that the material elements of employee s version had never been put to the applicant s witness and to factor this into his assessment of the probabilities. [18] Without the employee s representative putting specific versions related to each of the employees to the applicant s witness, the arbitrator ought not to have accepted these versions over the version of the applicant s witness. The arbitrator in effect preferred untested evidence over evidence that had been tested in cross- examination. That is a gross irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. [19] The arbitrator further failed to appreciate that Muller s evidence was by and large undisputed, including evidence relating to the serious and dismissible nature of the offence, the practice in the industry, and the disciplinary hearing that was conducted. It was never contended by the employee, either in cross-examination or his own evidence in chief, that the test was not reliable or that it was not in use throughout the industry. [20] The summary of the evidence by the arbitrator simply omits Muller s evidence of

10 10 her personal witness to the employee smoking marijuana (an assertion that was uncontested) and that evidence was simply ignored. Similarly, the arbitrator simply ignored Muller s evidence regarding the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the employee and the potentially lethal consequences of his action. [21] Insofar as the paucity of documentation provided by the applicant underpins the arbitrator s reasoning and his award, the award suggests that the applicant had been requested or required to produce documents and in particular, a copy of its disciplinary game procedure and that it had failed to do so. At no stage, whether in the opening statements, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, was the procedural fairness of the employees dismissal ever disputed, nor had the applicant been requested to furnish the documents concerned. I fail to appreciate on what possible basis the commissioner made the finding of procedural unfairness that he did. Procedural fairness had never been squarely placed in dispute, and there was no evidence from either witness that made any reference to the pre-dismissal procedure, but for Muller s undisputed evidence that the employee had been required to attend a disciplinary hearing and that he was dismissed after the hearing. [22] Had the arbitrator properly applied his mind to the evidence, he would have come to the conclusion that the evidence of the applicant s witness stood largely uncontested and undisputed. It was not denied that Muller and other drivers had seen the applicant smoke marijuana. In the absence of any challenge to that evidence, it was not necessary, as the arbitrator appears to have thought, for the applicant to call any of these witnesses to corroborate Muller s evidence. There was simply no need to do so. It is also clear to me that the arbitrator failed to apply his mind to the employee s evidence regarding Schoeman. Muller had made no reference to Schoeman when she testified, nor had the employee s representative when she cross-examined Muller. The evidence regarding Schoeman emerged for the first time when the employee gave evidence. I fail to appreciate how in these circumstances the applicant can be criticised for failing to call Schoeman as a witness, let alone how that failure can form the basis of a

11 11 probability finding against the applicant. At the time that the applicant closed its case, there had been no mention of Schoeman or what he had supposedly said to the employee. [23] Similarly, in relation to the arbitrator s finding that the applicant had failed to call medical expert evidence, I fail to appreciate, in circumstances where the authenticity of the test and its use in the industry was never seriously disputed by the employee s representative, how such a finding can be made. To the extent that the arbitrator s finding is based on his intervention when he asked Muller why the employer not been sent to a medical facility, that question had as its purpose the ability for medical experts to test for a whole range of drugs. Given that the integrity of the test administered had not been called into question and that the test itself was capable of testing for the presence of a number of other drugs (which was never disputed) there is no basis on which the arbitrator could reasonably rely on make a finding he did. [24] Finally, in relation to the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitrator, he specifically takes into account the fact that the employee had been employed for more than three years. In the introduction to his own award, the arbitrator records that the applicant had been employed in August 2013 and dismissed in May 2014, a period of some eight months. [25] In short: the arbitrator reached conclusions without properly applying his mind to the credibility of the witnesses who testified before him. Had the arbitrator done so, he would have rejected the employee s version. There is no basis on which to rescue the award, i.e. to find that notwithstanding the arbitrator s shortcomings, the result of the proceedings under review can nonetheless be sustained. On a proper assessment of the available evidence, the employee committed the misconduct with which he had been charged, and his dismissal was justified. The award accordingly stands to be reviewed and set aside. [26] The applicant did not pursue an order for costs. It is appropriate in this context to record that had the arbitrator or the CCMA elected to oppose this application, I

12 12 would have had no hesitation in making an order for costs against them, jointly and severally. Indeed, it had crossed my mind to invite the arbitrator to make submissions as to why he should not be held personally liable for the costs of these proceedings. I say this on account of the unnecessary and gratuitous remarks made by him in regard to the applicant and the manner in which it dealt with this matter. The conclusion that the applicant had been vindictive and malicious in its actions has no basis or any substance whatsoever. Similarly, the arbitrator s egregious attack on the applicant recorded in paragraph 51 of the award, in which he states that the applicant somehow is in breach of the normative value system that underpins the Constitution and that it has acted in flagrant disregard and contempt for the laws of this country, has no substance. Indeed, it is the arbitrator who has failed in his constitutional obligation to ensure fairness to both parties and to afford them both a fair hearing. I make the following order: 1. The arbitration award issued by the first respondent under case number GATW dated 8 February 2015 is reviewed and set aside. 2. The award is substituted by the following: The applicant s dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. ANDRÉ VAN NIEKERK JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT

13 13 REPRESENTATION For the applicant: Ms H Strijdom, Helena Strijdom Attorneys For the third respondent: Adv M Coetzee, instructed by Law Clinic, University of Pretoria

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 815/15 DUNCANMEC (PTY) LTD Applicant and WILLIAM, ITUMELENG N.O THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRY BARGAINING

More information

SAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

SAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2504/12 In the matter between: NORTHAM PLATINUM LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Not reportable. Case No: JR 369/10

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Not reportable. Case No: JR 369/10 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR 369/10 In the matter between: DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING : LIMPOPO First Applicant MEC : DEPARTMENT OF

More information

In the matter between:

In the matter between: REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 868/13 In the matter between: PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPLICANT and COMMISSION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: JR 730/12 Not Reportable DUNYISWA MAQUNGO Applicant andand LUVUYO QINA N.O First Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 839/2011 BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD Applicant and NUMSA obo ITUMELENG MAWELELA First Respondent ADVOCATE PC PIO

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 463/2016 ROBOR (PTY) LTD First Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT CASE NO C 65/12 Not reportable In the matter between: FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Z NEWU AND OTHERS FIRST APPLICANT SECOND

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P543/13 In the matter between: MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA Applicant And THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS (PTY) LIMITED

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS (PTY) LIMITED 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR2799/11 In the matter between: NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and NATIONAL BARGAINING

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P 423/12 In the matter between: NKOSINDINI MELAPI Applicant andand THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

PIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which the applicant seeks to have the

PIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which the applicant seeks to have the IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: PIK-IT UP JOHANNESBURG (PTY) LTD Reportable Case number JR1834/09 Applicant and SALGBC K MAMBA N.O IMATU obo COOK First Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHNNESBURG)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHNNESBURG) 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHNNESBURG) Not Reportable Case No.JR877/12 In the matter between NATIONAL UNION MINEWORKERS First Applicant obo RUTH MASHA and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1859/13 NJR STEEL HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD NJR STEEL - PRETORIA EAST (PTY) LTD First Applicant Second

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: SITHOLE, JOEL Case no: JR 318/15 Applicant and METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES BARGAINING JOSEPH MPHAPHULI NO SPRAY SYSTEM

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 628/07 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER

More information

NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. JR 365/06

NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. JR 365/06 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO. JR 365/06 In the matter between: PATRICK LEBOHO Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT PICK N PAY LANGENHOVEN PARK. Second Respondent

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT PICK N PAY LANGENHOVEN PARK. Second Respondent THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 1534/15 In the matter between: ROYCE S FAMILY SUPERMARKET (PTY) LTD t/a PICK N PAY LANGENHOVEN PARK Applicant and DELL

More information

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EASTERN CAPE THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EASTERN CAPE THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PORT ELIZABETH Not reportable Case no: PR 71/13 In the matter between: THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: EASTERN CAPE Applicant And THOBELA

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 490/15 In the matter between: ELIZABETH MATLAKALA BODIBE Applicant and PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING COUNCIL DANIEL

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2630/12 In the matter between: NUM obo MOGASHOA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO. D460/08 In the matter between: SHAUN SAMSON Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent ALMEIRO

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR832/11 In the matter between: SUPT. MM ADAMS Applicant and THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL JOYCE TOHLANG

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD. Third Respondent 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: JR 2170/11 In the matter between: SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER WILFRED NKOENG N.O NUPDW obo SIFISO

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR2134/15 DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL First Respondent BARGAINING

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR2899/2012 In the matter between: SUPER SQUAD LABOUR BROKERS Applicant and SEHUNANE M, N.O. First Respondent THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. 4 PL FLEET (PTY) LTD Applicant

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. 4 PL FLEET (PTY) LTD Applicant IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 1867/15 In the matter between: 4 PL FLEET (PTY) LTD Applicant and JIM MBUYISELLWA MABASO First Respondent DANIEL H BAKANI Second

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1679/13 In the matter between: SIZANO ADAM MAHLANGU Applicant and COMMISION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: JR 2500/10 In the matter between: MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) GOLD FIELDS MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (KLOOF GOLD MINE) Applicant

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) GOLD FIELDS MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (KLOOF GOLD MINE) Applicant IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO: JR 2006/08 GOLD FIELDS MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (KLOOF GOLD MINE) Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2368/15 In the matter between: EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 271/15 SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS (SOC) LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Not of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 202/10 In the matter between: K J LISANYANE Applicant and C J

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MEC: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GAUTENG.

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT MEC: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GAUTENG. 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2145 / 2008 In the matter between: MEC: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GAUTENG Applicant and J MSWELI

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT BERNARD ANTONY MARROW

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT BERNARD ANTONY MARROW REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P229/11 In the matter between: BERNARD ANTONY MARROW Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA; JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA; JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA; JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 706/2012 In the matter between: PILLAY, MOGASEELAN (RAMA) First Applicant LETSOALO, MAITE MELIDA

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD IN JOHANNESBURG) Case number: JR2343/05 In the matter between: SEEFF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Applicant And COMMISSIONER N. MBHELE N.O First Respondent COMMISSION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Reportable CASE NO.: JR 598/07. In the matter between: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS.

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Reportable CASE NO.: JR 598/07. In the matter between: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS. IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO.: JR 598/07 In the matter between: GENERAL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant MCUBUSE Second Applicant

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1906/2016 In the matter between ELIZABETH LEE MING Applicant and MMI GROUP LTD KAREN DE VILLIERS N.O. First Respondent

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT TSEPANG PASCALIS NOOSI

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT TSEPANG PASCALIS NOOSI THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 291/2011 In the matter between: TSEPANG PASCALIS NOOSI Applicant and EXXAROMATLA COAL First Respondent COMMISSION FOR

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG. THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo A POTGIETER THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG. THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo A POTGIETER THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR2212/12 In the matter between: THE PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo A POTGIETER Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE

More information

ANGLO AMERICAN CORPORATION OF SA LIMITED

ANGLO AMERICAN CORPORATION OF SA LIMITED IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO J2027/00 In the matter between: ANGLO AMERICAN CORPORATION OF SA LIMITED Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION TUCKER RAYMOND

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CEMENTATION MINING Applicant

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CEMENTATION MINING Applicant THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JR 1644/06 In the matter between: CEMENTATION MINING Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1 ST Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : JR 161/06 In the matter between : SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES APPLICANT and SUPT F H LUBBE FIRST RESPONDENT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98. First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA Motion Engineering (Pty) Ltd

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98. First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA Motion Engineering (Pty) Ltd IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J1134/98 In the matter between: O D Zaayman Applicant and Provincial Director: CCMA Gauteng First Respondent M Miles Commissioner: CCMA

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no: D536/12 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY Applicant and COMMISSIONER

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1231/12 In the matter between: PAUL REFILOE MAHAMO Applicant And CMC di RAVENNA SOUTH AFRICA

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] In the main application in this matter the applicant seeks to review and set aside

JUDGMENT. [1] In the main application in this matter the applicant seeks to review and set aside IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR 214/01 CASE NO: J2498/08 In the matter between: NOVO NORDISK APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN

HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN Reportable Delivered 180211 Edited 280311 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO J253/11 In the matter between: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 1 ST APPLICANT JOHANNESBURG

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT 1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR2760/12 Reportable In the matter between: MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant and GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL

More information

In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which applicant seeks the following declaratory orders:

In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application in terms of which applicant seeks the following declaratory orders: IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION & ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O JUDITH

More information

In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg. Northern Training Trust. Third Respondent. Judgment

In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg. Northern Training Trust. Third Respondent. Judgment 1 In the Labour Court of South Africa Held in Johannesburg In the matter between: Case number: JR268/ 02 Northern Training Trust Applicant and Josiah Maake Sita Gesina Maria Du Toit CCMA First Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2826/11 In the matter between: CENTRAL UNVIVERISTY OF TECHNOLOGY Applicant And S KHOLOANE First Respondent MARINA TERBLANCHE

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT WILFRED BONGINKOSI NKABINDE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT WILFRED BONGINKOSI NKABINDE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J1812/12 In the matter between: WILFRED BONGINKOSI NKABINDE Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J 2591/17 In the matter between: FAIS OMBUD Applicant and MPHO RAMETSI First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98. In the matter between:

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98. In the matter between: IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: J 3275/98 In the matter between: SUN INTERNATIONAL (SOUTH AFRICA) LIMITED TRADING AS MORULA SUN HOTEL AND CASINO and COMMISSION FOR

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no JR 1218/2015 In the matter between: HYGIENIK (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, AT DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D477/11 In the matter between:- HOSPERSA First Applicant E. JOB Second Applicant and CHITANE SOZA

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: JR 1343/10 NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA obo ANDREW MATABANE Applicant and FABRICATED STEEL

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE COLD CHAIN (PTY) LTD

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE COLD CHAIN (PTY) LTD THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1053/13 In the matter between: THE COLD CHAIN (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER FAIZEL MOOI N.O COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 438/11 In the matter between: ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY SA LTD Applicant and COMMISSIONER J S K NKOSI N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1439/15 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Applicant and R M MASHIGO First Respondent SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J1773/12 In the matter between: VUSI MASHIANE and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Applicant First Respondent

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR1826/2011 POPCRU obo P PHAHO Applicant and L DREYER N.O. First Respondent MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Second Respondent

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT CORPORATION (SOC) LTD ELEANOR HAMBIDGE N.O. (AS ARBITRATOR)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT CORPORATION (SOC) LTD ELEANOR HAMBIDGE N.O. (AS ARBITRATOR) THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 745 / 16 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (SOC) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BENJAMIN LEHLOHONOLO MOSIKILI

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BENJAMIN LEHLOHONOLO MOSIKILI THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR1045/2011 In the matter between: BENJAMIN LEHLOHONOLO MOSIKILI Applicant and MASS CASH (PTY) LTD t/a QWAQWA CASH & CARRY

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT KAMALANATHAN GOVENDER

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT KAMALANATHAN GOVENDER REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: D726/2013 In the matter between: KAMALANATHAN GOVENDER Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE SAFETY

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D963/09 In the matter between:- NDWEDWE MUNICIPALITY Applicant and GORDON SIZWESIHLE MNGADI COMMISSIONER

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) JOHANNESBURG CITY PARKS ADVOCATE JAFTA MPHAHLANI N.O.

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) JOHANNESBURG CITY PARKS ADVOCATE JAFTA MPHAHLANI N.O. THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between: CASE NO. JR 1028/06 JOHANNESBURG CITY PARKS Applicant And ADVOCATE JAFTA MPHAHLANI N.O. THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT EDWIN NCHABELENG & 2 OTHERS LAPACE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT EDWIN NCHABELENG & 2 OTHERS LAPACE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J580/2013 EDWIN NCHABELENG & 2 OTHERS Applicants and LAPACE CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard:

More information

remitted back to the first respondent to be arbitrated de novo. The reasons

remitted back to the first respondent to be arbitrated de novo. The reasons IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO: JR2885/08 In the matter between: J. H. STANDER Applicant AND THE EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL R I MACGREGOR N.O. 1 st

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 392/14 In the matter between KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 2634/13 SUNDUZA DORAH BALOYI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN In the matter between: REPORTABLE CASE NUMBER: C662/07 ELSTON, INGRID Applicant and McEWAN NO, GAIL SHELL SA ENERGY (PTY) LTD NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case no. D552/12 In the matter between: HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES PERSONNEL TRADE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA TM SOMERS First

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR 1693/16 In the matter between: PIETER BREED Applicant and LASER CLEANING AFRICA First Respondent Handed down on 3 October

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 3/03 VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 3/03 VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 3/03 XINWA and 1335 OTHERS Applicants versus VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent Decided on : 4 April 2003 JUDGMENT THE COURT: [1] The applicants

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD 1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JR534/12 In the matter between: PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD Applicant and CHAKANE, T N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 535/13 Not Reportable In the matter between: SATAWU obo A KGWELE Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between MOLOKO SALPHINA Case No: JR 1568/02 Applicant and Commissioner NTSOANE DIALE CCMA HYPERAMA (MAYVILLE) 1 st Respondent

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS SAMANCOR WESTERN CHROME MINES JUDGMENT: POINT IN LIMINE

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS SAMANCOR WESTERN CHROME MINES JUDGMENT: POINT IN LIMINE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 2015/14 & JS 406/14 In the matter between AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS TEBOGO MOSES MATHIBA First Applicant Second Applicant

More information

INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD A R B I T R A T I O N A W A R D

INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD A R B I T R A T I O N A W A R D ARBITRATIONHELD AT SA ROAD PASSENGER BARGAINING COUNCIL HELD AT INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD: BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE MATTER BETWEEN TAWUSA obo MOTEMA APPLICANT AND INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: C882/2015 In the matter between: TVET SA (PTY) LTD Applicant and LISA DOROTHY SWANEPOEL COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 876/16 In the matter between: UNITED NATIONAL TRANSPORT UNION OBO MEMBERS Applicant And BOMBELA OPERATING COMPANY (PTY) LTD

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGEMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGEMENT HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case number: JR2797/2005 In the matter between: BARNARD, ESM Applicant and THE DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL BOSCH, D N.O First Respondent Second Respondent

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. Second Respondent RULING ON CONDONATION AND

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. Second Respondent RULING ON CONDONATION AND REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Of interest to other judges Case no: JR 1567/10 In the application for leave to appeal between: OFFICE OF

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 685/16 In the matter between: Sandile NGOBENI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR

More information

Submitted by Nduduzo A. Ndlovu. Student Number: Supervisor: Benita Whitcher

Submitted by Nduduzo A. Ndlovu. Student Number: Supervisor: Benita Whitcher The admission of hearsay evidence, evidence obtained from entrapment and the interception and monitoring of communications in arbitration proceedings conducted in terms of the Labour Relations Act, 1995

More information

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MUYIWA GBENGA-OLUWATOYE

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA MUYIWA GBENGA-OLUWATOYE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 41/16 MUYIWA GBENGA-OLUWATOYE Applicant and RECKITT BENCKISER SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED NADEEM BAIG N.O. First Respondent Second Respondent

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG 1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 11224/11 In the matter between: STEVEN McGREGOR APPLICANT and THE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE Ms B. ASMAL N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 505/15 In the matter between: KAVITA RAMPERSAD Applicant and COMMISSIONER RICHARD BYRNE N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION FOR

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: JS 1135/12 In the matter between: DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS Applicant and TS AFRIKA CATERING

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2406/16 In the matter between: MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA Respondent Heard:

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not reportable Case No: JR 94/16 PHUTI TODD CHOKOE Applicant and MR. T. WILKES First Respondent SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Of interest to other Judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J1746/18 JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN BUS SERVICES SOC LTD Applicant and DEMOCRATIC MUNCIPAL

More information

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT 023/2005 PARTIES: Van Eyk v Minister of Correctional Services & Others ECJ NO : REFERENCE NUMBERS - Registrar: 125/05 DATE HEARD: 31 March 2005 DATE DELIVERED:

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR 2326 / 2006 In the matter between: MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS First Applicant DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS

More information